Gallipoli A Level Study

[Geoff S]

A better one, although a little contentious:

"To what extent did actors in Gallipoli, Anzacs and The Lighthorsemen appear in Australian soap operas of the 1970s and 80s? Special reference is to be made to Kylie Minogue and The Sullivans."

Or how about:

"To what extent are English failures at Gallipoli indictive of a general defeatist attitude which manifests itself in contemporary English sporting teams? Special reference being made to the recent British Lions defeat to the All Blacks & the English cricketing teams' in ability to win back the Ashes. Are Englishmen not suited to good, clean, team activites - like fighting wars? "

Cheers

Geoff S

[DirtyDick]

I think a machine gun or two could immeasurably help their performance.

"To what extent does natural English superiority in all fields allow them to oblige their Commonwealth counterparts through deliberately losing at sporting fixtures?" (Can't believe I wrote that!!!)

[Bryn]

Hey! That's not fair. There's no comeback to humility!

[DirtyDick]

Bein' ever so 'umble...

[Geoff S]

Or how about one of the following for the lad.

“To what extent were submarines at Gallipoli used in a very unsporting way?” And should such nasty contraptions been forced to fight on the surface where the wretched scoundrels could be easily viewed and sunk?” It’s just not cricket is it?

or

“Would the attack on V beach have been a success had Sir Ian built an enormous wooden submarine shaped like a horse to rise up out of the steamy depths like 'Poseidon' and dropped the brave Tommies ashore?

Tally Ho!

G

[DirtyDick]

In actual fact a lot of the submarines did fight on the surface in the Sea of Marmora, often with a captive dhow lashed to their landward side for camouflage: they bolted on a bloody great gun and attacked trains and passing troops. On one occasion, they even exchanged rifle fire with Turkish troops. One of the commanders, Nasmith, almost torpedoed an American cruiser visiting Constantinople.

What about if the landings were made in the Antarctic and they made their way north independently. "To what extent would that have out-foxed Johnnie Turk and put a swift end to the frightfulness of the Hun?"

[Ozzie]

Now the imagination is taking flight. Antartica had been well studied and mapped by the New Zealand, Australian and British explorers by then, So at least they would have known the topography.

Quote

‘Far more interesting would be a piece on how the inexperience of both officers and men in the AIF saw a lack of cohesion during the initial landings, how officer and NCO casualties affected the raw recruits and how enthusiasm saw the achievement of some but the loss of many achievable objectives.’

And further to Bryn’s points about the officers:

Primary evidence

Sergeant Baker, present at the landing of the AIF, 25th April.

‘Their fire was getting absolutely murderous, but our chaps advanced again and again and were dropping in all directions, but would not be stopped.

…Many of our officers were shot down and most of the time we had no orders at all, but had to rely on ourselves to do the best we could. Whenever we did happen to see an officer the order was always the same: “get ahead lads and stick it into them”.’

Given that at their back was the sea, they had no idea of where they were, no reliable maps, the ground was scrubby, the Turks were dug in, what officers there were, were telling them to fight, where else where they to go but up, in the fastest way possible, to A.. do what they had been sent to do- attack, and to B..find some place to dig in and try to consolidate what gains they made.?

Kim

[Guest seejayden]

There does not appear to be any knowledge or lack of knowledge pre-requisite for participating in this debate.

Rather than trotting out the re-cycled prejudices, there may be some advantage in restricting contributors. Have an expert define a specific topic to discuss. Robbie, and Dirty Dick, both of whom apparently have "Left their conuntry for their Countrys' sake" could be delegated to take the pro and anti australian positions, exclusively.

Should that not be an acceptable suggestion, at least refer to an authority who has undertaken a scientific analysis of the Australian Soldier of the Great War. An eminent historian (Blair) has documented his analysis of ALL the 1000 recruits of the 1syt Aust Battalion in "DinkumDiggers"

[Andrew P]

Should that not be an acceptable suggestion, at least refer to an authority who has undertaken a scientific analysis of the Australian Soldier of the Great War.  An eminent historian (Blair) has documented his analysis of ALL the 1000 recruits of the 1syt Aust Battalion in "DinkumDiggers"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First time I've heard Blair labelled 'Eminent'.

He tries to make judgements on the AIF by using one battalion which was recruited from the burbs of Sydney. Not exactly a cross section of the Australian Imperial Force.

[Ozzie]

If the A level student is still wishing to have more texts suggested, then I would suggest Silent Voices by Robert Kearney and The Spirit of the Digger by Patrick Lindsay. Others may find them very informative as well.

Cheers

Kim

PS Not a bad idea, Seejayden, wouldn't mind seeing that debate.

[mcderms]

Also let's not forget we're talking about an A-Level study here and not Mr Holmes' next opus!

Another suggestion would be to look at things from a Turkish perspective. People are very keen to talk about Oz and NZ nationhood being born at Gallipoli but what about the Turks? Revolution, (civil) war and the birth of a country in the blood of martyrs should spin nicely though 3000 words or so.

BTW these things have got shorter since my day. My A-Level study was as long as my dissertation!